Eh, you might be taking it too far. I doubt ISP's interest in this is political, it's corporate. They have a longstanding desire to bottleneck traffic to sites that are bad for them and their partners, like The Pirate Bay. It makes perfect sense, if Comcast/Verizon/Whoever could limit service to a site that uses up huge amounts of bandwidth and pisses off their media partners by violating their copyrights, why WOULDN'T they? I would have no problem with that, except Pirate Bay isn't technically illegal, very few 'undesirable' sites are. Therefore you would have to give someone the ability to decide which sites aren't deserving of 'full' bandwidth privileges ISPs (Bad. Some ISP, AOL I believe, had already been caught limiting bandwidth to the sites of rival ISPs) or the government (Worse, basically a mild form of censorship) That's what the ISPs want: a relatively small percentage of internet users use a disproportionately large amount of bandwidth, and that bandwidth goes to things the ISP either doesn't want to be involved with, like peer-to-peer trading, or doesn't consider it worthwhile, like online gaming. Trying to use it as a political tool would result in an immediate and severe backlash. A few years back Verizon tried to deny NARAL, a pro-abortion group, a fast-text number, e.g. Text to 55555 now! Not deny them the right to text, just the fast-text number. They were browbeaten into submission almost immediately, those kinds of shenanigans can't fly today.
In most cases a free market will correct things like that with competition. E.G. US Airways pissed people off by charging for water. US Airways started losing business to competitors, and ended the practice. But given that all internet access ultimately comes under the control of a very limited number of people, and creating a 'new' internet is hardly feasible, it would be impossible for any new company to compete by offering service without those restrictions, so that form of self-correction is impossible.